Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of lun mar 07 12:51:49 -0300 2011: > > On 03/07/2011 10:46 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Hmm, I've read that wikipedia definition before, but the "atomic" part > > never caught my eye. You do get zero data loss with what we have; if a > > meteor strikes the master, no acknowledged transaction is lost. I find > > that definition a bit confusing. > > Maybe it is - I agree the difference might be small. I'm just trying to > make sure we don't use a term that could mislead reasonable people about > what we're providing. If we're satisfied that we aren't, then keep it. I think these terms are used inconsistenly enough across the industry that what would make the most sense would be to use the common term and document accurately what we mean by it, rather than relying on some external entity's definition, which could change (like wikipedia's). -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
